Is warrior is way too unpopular on GW2?

[Obtena.7952]

On 11/3/2022 at 8:34 PM, felix.2386 said:

How are these not representative of the playerbase.

GW2efficiency is more then enough to have a general grasp of overall player base behavior.

Like seriously, wow warrior might be so popular around those lv56 players who did not even finish core story line and have green/blue gears and only play a few hours every 2 months.

but do you really need those players to know anything about gw2 at all to form any real opinion about the game?

 

no. it's the guys who have multiple lvl80s, full ascended gears and invested in the game and who 95%+ the times also put API on gw2efficiency, who play all kind of lv80 contents/end game content/pvp/wvw and have a choice between different lvl80 classes

and among these players, warrior has literally the bottom play time.

yes. that's more then enough.

 

i'm not sure if you noticed, on twitch gw2 stream, there's been 0 warrior for a long time, till steam release, suddenly quiet a few warrior pop up then every single gw2 stream with a warrior in it are literally below 80 and doing core story or some dungeon stuff lol and what happens with these warriors after they reach end game? they are switching class like all the invested guys on gw2eff or wingman, because that's exactly what's showing to us, or they simply quit.

also most likely the recent heavy focus on warrior because they saw the numbers, but yea not like those patches really worked out much.

It's weird how the burden to prove the Wingman data is representative isn't on the people using the data to make their claims. 

And we also know it's NOT representative because at one point when Wingman said mech was 32%, Anet confirmed based on their own, more comprehensive data, that it was 20%. 

The fact is that no one, but Anet, would know how 'popular' Warrior is based on usage data. Anecdotes about twitch videos and such aren't data points. I'm certain that who warrior is popular with depends on the demographics; there likely isn't any general trend here. 

 

Edited November 6, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[anbujackson.9564]

On 11/2/2022 at 11:39 PM, Zizekent.2398 said:

Warrior, one of the most popular classes for RPGs/MMORPGs, is barely being seen on GW2, despite having:

PvE:
-Condi quick berserker: the BEST damaging quickness dps build of the entire game.

 

Too bad that the damage doesnt matter. All its utility is in the banners. And besides quickness and fury you got nothing really going for it. It only works because banners got overbuffed to force it on warriors.

I can count with one hand the amount of quickness warriors I encountered. In general its much better to play a support that provides multiple small amounts of quickness/alacrity than just two big ones. I mean just missing banner of tactics is catastrophic.

Also the dps rampup on berserker is painfully bad. There is a reason you dont even see dps condi berserkers running around. Next to the slow rampup you also have the headbutt issue and you are reliant on jumping your fire fields AND if you lack alacrity you might as well not play it at all because the rotation wont even work properly then.

[draxynnic.3719]

17 hours ago, Obtena.7952 said:

It's weird how the burden to prove the Wingman data is representative isn't on the people using the data to make their claims. 

And we also know it's NOT representative because at one point when Wingman said mech was 32%, Anet confirmed based on their own, more comprehensive data, that it was 20%. 

The fact is that no one, but Anet, would know how 'popular' Warrior is based on usage data. Anecdotes about twitch videos and such aren't data points. I'm certain that who warrior is popular with depends on the demographics; there likely isn't any general trend here. 

 

20% is still pretty darn high when it's not one profession, but one specialisation. I also don't recall if Arenanet said how they sampled their data.

In any respect, the Wingman data still showed a problem. We can slap some error bars on the actual figure and still conclude that if Wingman is showing that one elite specialisation is that overrepresented in raids and strikes (for fractals you need to consider build 'stickiness' due to AR), there is a problem. ArenaNet's data might have disagreed on the magnitude of the problem, but I think it's disingenuous to claim that just because Wingman data didn't perfectly align with Arenanet's data, we should ignore Wingman data because maybe there's a hidden majority of players for whom it isn't a problem.

We work with the information we have available, and that's Wingman. And the discrepancy in the numbers doesn't erase the fact that both sets of data agreed on the trends. Wingman probably exaggerates them, but I think what evidence we do have suggests that the trends on Wingman are carried into the endgame PvE player base in general. In any respect, however flawed, it's the information we have to work with. If there's flawed evidence showing a problem while the only argument that goes against that evidence is a "well MAYBE those numbers don't carry into the general population" - well, that's basically a 'god of the gaps' fallacy. Sure, MAYBE the general populace is doing something very different to what's shown in Wingman. But they probably aren't.

[Obtena.7952]

7 hours ago, draxynnic.3719 said:

20% is still pretty darn high when it's not one profession, but one specialisation. I also don't recall if Arenanet said how they sampled their data.

In any respect, the Wingman data still showed a problem. We can slap some error bars on the actual figure and still conclude that if Wingman is showing that one elite specialisation is that overrepresented in raids and strikes (for fractals you need to consider build 'stickiness' due to AR), there is a problem. ArenaNet's data might have disagreed on the magnitude of the problem, but I think it's disingenuous to claim that just because Wingman data didn't perfectly align with Arenanet's data, we should ignore Wingman data because maybe there's a hidden majority of players for whom it isn't a problem.

We work with the information we have available, and that's Wingman. And the discrepancy in the numbers doesn't erase the fact that both sets of data agreed on the trends. Wingman probably exaggerates them, but I think what evidence we do have suggests that the trends on Wingman are carried into the endgame PvE player base in general. In any respect, however flawed, it's the information we have to work with. If there's flawed evidence showing a problem while the only argument that goes against that evidence is a "well MAYBE those numbers don't carry into the general population" - well, that's basically a 'god of the gaps' fallacy. Sure, MAYBE the general populace is doing something very different to what's shown in Wingman. But they probably aren't.

The point I was making was to ensure people don't run away with the idea that Wingman suddenly represents the population. It doesn't. Sure, it is evidence of usage and trends ... but NOT for all players. It's literally just a subset of people and likely very biased to a certain demographic.

I think the interesting thing about the mechanist example of Wingman isn't that there is a 50% over-representation in the data from the actual value (which in itself questions the statistical relevance of Wingman data) ... it's that Anet made a point to expose that discrepancy. Were they just making a fun fact of the day ... or are Anet trying to tell us something about how we view the game to bring some people back to reality?  

Again, the bottomline: is warrior TOO unpopular? We just don't have the necessary data to support any claim on that, even if you want to include Wingman. I don't even see the problem if it's not popular. It's just another angle by the OP to complain Warrior has problems. 

 

Edited November 7, 2022 by Obtena.7952

[Eekasqueak.7850]

On 11/6/2022 at 3:33 AM, draxynnic.3719 said:

One of the things I was thinking is that in GW1, adrenaline did generate a more active style overall than it does with core GW2 warrior. Largely because you'd have a variety of skills on your bar, each tracking adrenaline individually, and likely requiring different amounts of adrenaline to use. So it created a system where, if you built your bar appropriately, you'd constantly be having more adrenaline skills coming up to be used in between more conventional skills. While in GW2 it's one skill per weapon and adrenaline is tracked globally so spending adrenaline on one means not having it for the other (well, outside of the gain-adrenaline-on-swap trait, anyway).

It's somewhat notable that all of the elite specialisations modify the core adrenaline system with the effect of making them able to be used more often, but I do wonder if warrior would have been better off if they stuck to the GW1 adrenaline system and used adrenaline for weapon skills instead of recharge.

Might be that GW1's system would be too close to thief initiative. 

[Eekasqueak.7850]

duplicate post caused by latency 

Edited November 7, 2022 by Eekasqueak.7850

[WindBlade.8749]

my squad in raids is often 6 engie 4 war, i don't see the issue with wars for pve.

Edited November 7, 2022 by WindBlade.8749